Just What is Libertarianism?

[bripat9643]

It's not 10,000 years ago.

Good or bad, right or wrong, we live in the here and now – there's no 'going back,' there's no idealized Utopia of the past to 'resurrect'; this is a fact you and other reactionary libertarians refuse to accept, and this is why reactionary libertarianism is a failed Utopian dogma devoid of merit.

Libertarians want to keep the socialist edifice leftists have erected in this country?

This word you keep using "reactionary," I do not think it means what you think it means....

LOL, all pomp, zero substance. Learn the English language at least

Liberals are the true reactionaries. They don't seem to get the fact that they are the establishment now.

 

[PratchettFan]

I was referring to your phrase "key to understanding libertarianism". I understand libertarianism, it just doesn't work. It is based upon the idea that human beings don't exist. That is in error.

Then the error is yours. It's not based on that idea.

It certainly is. It assumes that human beings will suddenly stop acting like human beings if they are just given the chance. They won't. The society is a reflection of the people living in that society, not the other way round.

 

[dblack]

I was referring to your phrase "key to understanding libertarianism". I understand libertarianism, it just doesn't work. It is based upon the idea that human beings don't exist. That is in error.

Then the error is yours. It's not based on that idea.

It certainly is. It assumes that human beings will suddenly stop acting like human beings if they are just given the chance. They won't. The society is a reflection of the people living in that society, not the other way round.

I don't know where you got that. But it has nothing to do with libertarian ideology.

 

[bripat9643]

I was referring to your phrase "key to understanding libertarianism". I understand libertarianism, it just doesn't work. It is based upon the idea that human beings don't exist. That is in error.

Then the error is yours. It's not based on that idea.

It certainly is. It assumes that human beings will suddenly stop acting like human beings if they are just given the chance. They won't. The society is a reflection of the people living in that society, not the other way round.

All you have said is that society is society, a tautology. The people "living in society" is the same thing as society.

What you need to show is that there is some human trait that makes a libertarian society impossible. The reality is that human traits make liberalism impossible.

 

[Teddy Pollins]

Every political ideology has problem of it's own.
I think the biggest problem with libertarianism is how you define "protection" in the context of the government's purpose in libertarian society is only for protection.
any idea?

 

[bripat9643]

Every political ideology has problem of it's own.
I think the biggest problem with libertarianism is how you define "protection" in the context of the government's purpose in libertarian society is only for protection.
any idea?

Government shouldn't do anything that a private citizen couldn't do to defend himself or his property.

 

[PratchettFan]

I was referring to your phrase "key to understanding libertarianism". I understand libertarianism, it just doesn't work. It is based upon the idea that human beings don't exist. That is in error.

Then the error is yours. It's not based on that idea.

It certainly is. It assumes that human beings will suddenly stop acting like human beings if they are just given the chance. They won't. The society is a reflection of the people living in that society, not the other way round.

I don't know where you got that. But it has nothing to do with libertarian ideology.

It has everything to do with it. I get it from libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon the idea that if you just leave people alone they will take care of each other, work hand in hand to fix problems and everything will work out fine. Well, they won't take care of each other, they won't work hand in hand and what you will end up with is an oligarchy akin to feudalism. Libertarianism is a beautiful dream, but then so is communism. They would work wonderfully if you could just get rid of all those pesky people.

 

[dblack]

It has everything to do with it. I get it from libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon the idea that if you just leave people alone they will take care of each other, work hand in hand to fix problems and everything will work out fine. Well, they won't take care of each other, they won't work hand in hand and what you will end up with is an oligarchy akin to feudalism. Libertarianism is a beautiful dream, but then so is communism. They would work wonderfully if you could just get rid of all those pesky people.

That actually isn't part of libertarian ideology. Some libertarians are optimistic that people, left to their own devices, are generally good and will treat each other fairly without mandates from government, and I tend to count myself in that camp. But many - probably more - have a darker view of human nature (that apparently you share). For them, limited government is even more important because they don't believe you can't trust people with the kind of power an authoritarian state offers.

 

[bripat9643]

It has everything to do with it. I get it from libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon the idea that if you just leave people alone they will take care of each other, work hand in hand to fix problems and everything will work out fine. Well, they won't take care of each other, they won't work hand in hand and what you will end up with is an oligarchy akin to feudalism. Libertarianism is a beautiful dream, but then so is communism. They would work wonderfully if you could just get rid of all those pesky people.

That actually isn't part of libertarian ideology. Some libertarians are optimistic that people, left to their own devices, are generally good and will treat each other fairly without mandates from government, and I tend to count myself in that camp. But many - probably more - have a darker view of human nature (that apparently you share). For them, limited government is even more important because they don't believe you can trust people with the kind of power an authoritarian state offers.

Why do you waste your time trying to educate this guy? He's a jackass who isn't capable of being educate of of committing logic.

 

[rightwinger]

It's not 10,000 years ago.

Good or bad, right or wrong, we live in the here and now – there's no 'going back,' there's no idealized Utopia of the past to 'resurrect'; this is a fact you and other reactionary libertarians refuse to accept, and this is why reactionary libertarianism is a failed Utopian dogma devoid of merit.

Libertarians want to keep the socialist edifice leftists have erected in this country?

This word you keep using "reactionary," I do not think it means what you think it means....

LOL, all pomp, zero substance. Learn the English language at least

Liberals are the true reactionaries. They don't seem to get the fact that they are the establishment now.

We realize that and that conservatives are the radicals trying to destroy our country

 

[dblack]

It has everything to do with it. I get it from libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon the idea that if you just leave people alone they will take care of each other, work hand in hand to fix problems and everything will work out fine. Well, they won't take care of each other, they won't work hand in hand and what you will end up with is an oligarchy akin to feudalism. Libertarianism is a beautiful dream, but then so is communism. They would work wonderfully if you could just get rid of all those pesky people.

That actually isn't part of libertarian ideology. Some libertarians are optimistic that people, left to their own devices, are generally good and will treat each other fairly without mandates from government, and I tend to count myself in that camp. But many - probably more - have a darker view of human nature (that apparently you share). For them, limited government is even more important because they don't believe you can trust people with the kind of power an authoritarian state offers.

Why do you waste your time trying to educate this guy? He's a jackass who isn't capable of being educate of of committing logic.

I enjoy discussing the topic, and I like interacting with people who see things differently than I do.

 

[kaz]

It's not 10,000 years ago.

Good or bad, right or wrong, we live in the here and now – there's no 'going back,' there's no idealized Utopia of the past to 'resurrect'; this is a fact you and other reactionary libertarians refuse to accept, and this is why reactionary libertarianism is a failed Utopian dogma devoid of merit.

Libertarians want to keep the socialist edifice leftists have erected in this country?

This word you keep using "reactionary," I do not think it means what you think it means....

LOL, all pomp, zero substance. Learn the English language at least

Liberals are the true reactionaries. They don't seem to get the fact that they are the establishment now.

We realize that and that conservatives are the radicals trying to destroy our country

True, but since the difference between you and conservatives is so tiny, that makes you a radical trying to destroy the country too, which is actually true.

You are Tweedledee and Tweedledum. You are two identical houses other than you painted your laundry rooms a different shade of white. You don't need mirrors, just look at each other.

Also simpleton, again in your obsession with Republicans, this is a thread about libertarians. Republicans are helping you build government. Yet they are the ones you are obsessed with. We libertarians are actually trying to destroy the socialist edifice you consider your country

 

[kaz]

I was referring to your phrase "key to understanding libertarianism". I understand libertarianism, it just doesn't work. It is based upon the idea that human beings don't exist. That is in error.

Then the error is yours. It's not based on that idea.

It certainly is. It assumes that human beings will suddenly stop acting like human beings if they are just given the chance. They won't. The society is a reflection of the people living in that society, not the other way round.

I don't know where you got that. But it has nothing to do with libertarian ideology.

It has everything to do with it. I get it from libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon the idea that if you just leave people alone they will take care of each other, work hand in hand to fix problems and everything will work out fine. Well, they won't take care of each other, they won't work hand in hand and what you will end up with is an oligarchy akin to feudalism. Libertarianism is a beautiful dream, but then so is communism. They would work wonderfully if you could just get rid of all those pesky people.

The irony you say this while you believe if government confiscates money with force it will use it to take care of people. Government isn't using money to help people, Virginia, it's using it to amass power. You aren't wearing blinders, you are wearing a blindfold

 

[PratchettFan]

It has everything to do with it. I get it from libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon the idea that if you just leave people alone they will take care of each other, work hand in hand to fix problems and everything will work out fine. Well, they won't take care of each other, they won't work hand in hand and what you will end up with is an oligarchy akin to feudalism. Libertarianism is a beautiful dream, but then so is communism. They would work wonderfully if you could just get rid of all those pesky people.

That actually isn't part of libertarian ideology. Some libertarians are optimistic that people, left to their own devices, are generally good and will treat each other fairly without mandates from government, and I tend to count myself in that camp. But many - probably more - have a darker view of human nature (that apparently you share). For them, limited government is even more important because they don't believe you can't trust people with the kind of power an authoritarian state offers.

It is certainly part of the libertarian ideology you have presented. And it is part of the libertarian ideology I have ever heard expressed by any other libertarian. Those who share my view of human nature (which is quite dark, I fully admit) need to rethink their position, because all they are doing is transferring that power from the hands of people they have some control over to people they do not. The notion that the new authoritarians will be any more concerned about individual rights than the former is just naïve.

 

[PratchettFan]

I was referring to your phrase "key to understanding libertarianism". I understand libertarianism, it just doesn't work. It is based upon the idea that human beings don't exist. That is in error.

Then the error is yours. It's not based on that idea.

It certainly is. It assumes that human beings will suddenly stop acting like human beings if they are just given the chance. They won't. The society is a reflection of the people living in that society, not the other way round.

I don't know where you got that. But it has nothing to do with libertarian ideology.

It has everything to do with it. I get it from libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon the idea that if you just leave people alone they will take care of each other, work hand in hand to fix problems and everything will work out fine. Well, they won't take care of each other, they won't work hand in hand and what you will end up with is an oligarchy akin to feudalism. Libertarianism is a beautiful dream, but then so is communism. They would work wonderfully if you could just get rid of all those pesky people.

The irony you say this while you believe if government confiscates money with force it will use it to take care of people. Government isn't using money to help people, Virginia, it's using it to amass power. You aren't wearing blinders, you are wearing a blindfold

So you say. Care to support that with actual, supported facts?

 

[PratchettFan]

It has everything to do with it. I get it from libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon the idea that if you just leave people alone they will take care of each other, work hand in hand to fix problems and everything will work out fine. Well, they won't take care of each other, they won't work hand in hand and what you will end up with is an oligarchy akin to feudalism. Libertarianism is a beautiful dream, but then so is communism. They would work wonderfully if you could just get rid of all those pesky people.

That actually isn't part of libertarian ideology. Some libertarians are optimistic that people, left to their own devices, are generally good and will treat each other fairly without mandates from government, and I tend to count myself in that camp. But many - probably more - have a darker view of human nature (that apparently you share). For them, limited government is even more important because they don't believe you can trust people with the kind of power an authoritarian state offers.

Why do you waste your time trying to educate this guy? He's a jackass who isn't capable of being educate of of committing logic.

I enjoy discussing the topic, and I like interacting with people who see things differently than I do.

As do I.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well now you have met one though to be honest I really have not given that particualr aspect of libertarian thought a whole lot of time untill now.

That's why I phrased it the way I did. I was not making a True Scotsman claim, I stated the fact I've never met a libertarian who didn't support loser pays. Or as you say, until now. Loser pays is one solution, so I think it's clearly a True Scotsman fallacy to say a libertarian has to support that specific solution.

However, the right to be made whole when you are wronged is a clear libertarian value. Whether or not loser pays is the specific solution, I don't see how a libertarian would not support the ability to in some way sue back for a frivolous or malicious lawsuit. I see three hypothetical options:

1) Loser pays - automatic
2) Follow on trial after verdict to determine if and how much loser will pay. Sort of like after a murder trial there can be a follow on trial attached to determine whether or not to have the death penalty
3) Loser can file a separate lawsuit.

I would have a hard time processing that a libertarian would reject the idea of losers pursuing compensation with the burden shifting to them to prove the lawsuit was not filed with honest intent

I, personally, think that the entire system needs to be reworked and the end result might not even matter as far as looser paying. The idea that I have to expend massive amounts of money to defend my rights or persue those that have broken them just smacks of corruption to me. I would definately support a loser pays system in blatant cases but I am not so sure if the case is legitamately muddy.

So from this, I would guess you support option 2?

Absolutely. What I am less sure is the idea that one should automatically be paying through the nose should they lose a case. There are instance where the courts are used to settle grievances where there really is no clear 'winner' and to punish someone that took a case to court to get it resolved is not always going to be the best solution IMHO. If there is a judgment phase afterward that makes a ton of sense to me. Frivolous cases, cases where the outcome should have been obvious or, more importantly, cases where the very lawsuit was used in the first place to gain advantage could be rectified.

 

[FA_Q2]

I was referring to your phrase "key to understanding libertarianism". I understand libertarianism, it just doesn't work. It is based upon the idea that human beings don't exist. That is in error.

Then the error is yours. It's not based on that idea.

It certainly is. It assumes that human beings will suddenly stop acting like human beings if they are just given the chance. They won't. The society is a reflection of the people living in that society, not the other way round.

I don't know where you got that. But it has nothing to do with libertarian ideology.

It has everything to do with it. I get it from libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon the idea that if you just leave people alone they will take care of each other, work hand in hand to fix problems and everything will work out fine. Well, they won't take care of each other, they won't work hand in hand and what you will end up with is an oligarchy akin to feudalism. Libertarianism is a beautiful dream, but then so is communism. They would work wonderfully if you could just get rid of all those pesky people.

I would actually say that is a bit off. The core of the philosophy, IMHO, is not that people will take care of those around them but by and large that people would take care of themselves.

 

[FA_Q2]

It has everything to do with it. I get it from libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon the idea that if you just leave people alone they will take care of each other, work hand in hand to fix problems and everything will work out fine. Well, they won't take care of each other, they won't work hand in hand and what you will end up with is an oligarchy akin to feudalism. Libertarianism is a beautiful dream, but then so is communism. They would work wonderfully if you could just get rid of all those pesky people.

That actually isn't part of libertarian ideology. Some libertarians are optimistic that people, left to their own devices, are generally good and will treat each other fairly without mandates from government, and I tend to count myself in that camp. But many - probably more - have a darker view of human nature (that apparently you share). For them, limited government is even more important because they don't believe you can't trust people with the kind of power an authoritarian state offers.

It is certainly part of the libertarian ideology you have presented. And it is part of the libertarian ideology I have ever heard expressed by any other libertarian. Those who share my view of human nature (which is quite dark, I fully admit) need to rethink their position, because all they are doing is transferring that power from the hands of people they have some control over to people they do not. The notion that the new authoritarians will be any more concerned about individual rights than the former is just naïve.

That is your opinion on what the result would be. I would counter that you are incorrect in that assumption though. We are not advocating transferring power to those you do not have control over - we are advocating transferring power to the single entity that you actually do have control over - yourself. We have already established that the government would still need to enforce law and protect rights. You seem to think that the regulatory structure that is in place now limits the power of business and the consolidation of that power within government is the proper price to pay for that. I think that you are the naive one here because that structure in no way limits the power of business - it INCREASES it. By huge leaps and bounds. What I see you doing is advocating for the very thing that you believe libertarian thought will create.

 

[bripat9643]

It has everything to do with it. I get it from libertarians. The entire ideology is based upon the idea that if you just leave people alone they will take care of each other, work hand in hand to fix problems and everything will work out fine. Well, they won't take care of each other, they won't work hand in hand and what you will end up with is an oligarchy akin to feudalism. Libertarianism is a beautiful dream, but then so is communism. They would work wonderfully if you could just get rid of all those pesky people.

That actually isn't part of libertarian ideology. Some libertarians are optimistic that people, left to their own devices, are generally good and will treat each other fairly without mandates from government, and I tend to count myself in that camp. But many - probably more - have a darker view of human nature (that apparently you share). For them, limited government is even more important because they don't believe you can trust people with the kind of power an authoritarian state offers.

Why do you waste your time trying to educate this guy? He's a jackass who isn't capable of being educate of of committing logic.

I enjoy discussing the topic, and I like interacting with people who see things differently than I do.

As do I.

Then why don't you ever respond to anything I post?